Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Wal-Mart Threatens Studios Over iTunes Sales

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the how-dare-they dept.

Y-Crate writes "It seems Wal-Mart is threatening retaliation against studios who decide to offer movies on iTunes. The Bentonville, AR retailer seems a bit miffed that someone would dare to undercut their prices. This wouldn't be the first time they've turned on a supplier for dealing with Apple." From the article: "Last year when Disney announced it would begin offering episodes of the hit shows 'Lost' and 'Desperate Housewives' on Apple's iTunes, the reaction of the world's largest retailer sent shockwaves through the entertainment industry. Wal-Mart, worried that offering the shows for viewing on iPods would cut into DVD sales at its stores, sent 'cases and cases' of DVDs back to Disney, according to a source familiar with the matter."

78 of 415 comments (clear)

  1. Egads!! by LaughingCoder · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Another business whose primary "value added" is their distribution channel (record labels come to mind) trying to fight technological changes that make their business model obsolete. Methinks we've seen this before, and we'll see it again.

    --
    The more you regulate a company, the worse its products become.
    1. Re:Egads!! by Tim+C · · Score: 3, Interesting

      We've seen this before every time a new process or invention has threatend to make an old way of doing business obsolete, and we'll see it every time it happens in the future. People smashed looms when they were introduced, because they put people out of work; people here have moaned and wailed about offshoring; the recording industry wails about electronic distrribution of media; now a bricks and mortar retailer is threatening suppliers over a perceived threat to its current way of making money.

      Distribution channels have nothing to do with it; it's all about money and a perceived threat to someone's way of making it. "The more things change, the more they stay the same..."

      --
      It's official. Most of you are morons.
    2. Re:Egads!! by LaughingCoder · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Distribution channels have nothing to do with it

      My point is that Walmart's value added *IS* their distribution channel. They don't make anything - they distribute products. That's what they do, and iTunes electronic distribution of movies threatens (one aspect) of that. So, since Walmart's business model is basically a distribution channel, that has EVERYTHING to do with it.

      --
      The more you regulate a company, the worse its products become.
    3. Re:Egads!! by El+Torico · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Getting your stuff sold in Walmart can make or break your company's sucess and Walmart knows that.

      Only if you make cheap junk; if you produce a high-quality product and are not willing to make compromises, then Wal-Mart is not your retail outlet.

      Here is a good story about how the CEO of Snapper stood up to Wal-Mart - http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/102/open_snapp er.html

      --
      In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is usually crucified.
    4. Re:Egads!! by cluckshot · · Score: 3, Interesting

      As very nearly every product supplier to Walmart has found out, they throw their weight around. You sign on thinking you are going to make a profitable access to the market. Then they come back throwing weight around. Shortly you as a supplier have your profit margin (The reason you are in business) squeezed to zero and below. You can't make this up in margin. Shortly if you don't cave entirely, they find another supplier. If you cannot sustain, you go broke. This is no formula for profits. It is the formula to go broke. Walmart of course profits all the way to your funeral or bankruptsy.

      I have some good news. Dollar General Store is about to slit their throat. Dollar store is locating in areas where Walmart lives and eating out their roots. Dollar store is paying their help and giving them benefits like insurance. Dollar store is serving their customers and I can already see that Walmart is headed for the ropes. You can only slit the throat of your suppliers for so long. Then you go broke too!

      --
      Never Politically Correct ~ I prefer the facts If you don't like what I say, get a life, or comment yourself.
    5. Re:Egads!! by dubiousmike · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Sanpper didn't "Stand up" to Walmart so much as made a smart decision:

      "Now, at the price I'm selling to you today, I'm not making any money on it. And if we do what you want next year, I'll lose money. I could do that and not go out of business. But we have this independent-dealer channel. And 80% of our business is over here with them. And I can't put them at a competitive disadvantage. If I do that, I lose everything. So this just isn't a compatible fit."

    6. Re:Egads!! by The+Snowman · · Score: 4, Insightful
      True. Wal-Mart is the ultimate symbol of what is wrong with the world today: TOO MANY MIDDLE MEN WHO DO NOTHING IN TERMS OF ORIGINAL PRODUCTION.

      While I have issues with Wally World, this is not one of them. Wal-Mart performs a valuable service: they stock thousands of items on their shelves that I really don't want to have to buy straight from the manufacturer. They handle some of their own shipping and distributing, i.e. moving stuff around. Sure, I could drive to another state to buy something from the manufacturer directly. I could also pay a shipping company such as UPS to deliver it for me. Or, I could go to a store that stocks it on their shelves (e.g. Wal-Mart) and have the convenience of a short drive from my house 24 hours a day to buy it.

      Middlemen definitely have advantages in a supply chain. True, too many will drive up prices and down quality in some cases (e.g. food items that spend too much time shuffling around and have a short shelf life by the time you purchase them). However, do you really want the inconvience of having to pursue the hundreds of items you need on a weekly basis yourself? Personally, I prefer to use stores.

      --
      24 beers in a case, 24 hours in a day. Coincidence? I think not!
    7. Re:Egads!! by CaptainZapp · · Score: 5, Interesting
      Dollar store is paying their help and giving them benefits like insurance.

      Slightly of topic, but reminds me of In'n'Out Burger. They pay decent wages to their employees, health benefits are the rule and what surprised me most: They use neither freezers, nor microwave ovens. The produce is delivered fresh, every day.

      Tasting such a burger is an epiphany. When you order it with onions, for example, you bite into a real onion and not into some fuzzy crap, designed by a food lab.

      Now, the surpising thing, acording to Fast Food Nation, The Dark Side of the All-American Meal is the fact that In'n'Out Burger is highly profitable, even though their prices are quite reasonable.

      To me this proves that you don't have to fuck your suppliers, employees and ultimately customers left right and center in order to turn a buck. This is somewhat encouraging in a world where greed and cheap seem to turn more and more into religious mantra.

      --
      ich bin der musikant

      mit taschenrechner in der hand

      kraftwerk

    8. Re:Egads!! by WhiteWolf666 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Costco, also.

      Costco, in terms of how they treat their employees, and how they negotiate with suppliers, is the anti-walmart.

      --
      WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
    9. Re:Egads!! by Jerf · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Wal-Mart is the ultimate symbol of what is wrong with the world today: TOO MANY MIDDLE MEN WHO DO NOTHING IN TERMS OF ORIGINAL PRODUCTION.
      Wrong. They centralize a lot of products into one place so you don't need to travel to the Nabisco store and the Keebler store and the M&M Mars store and the Pepsi store and the Coke store and the Nike store and the Sony store and the Nintendo store and the Pioneer store and the... clearly this could go on for quite a while.

      They are also able to lower costs by shipping en masse to this facility rather than shipping to a bajillion homes directly or a lot of separate stores, and there's other benefits in centralization that reflect in the costs, both to them and to you.

      These benefits are not unique to Wal-Mart, which is, after all, why they are neither the first nor last retail chain. They've merely been the most successful.

      Retail stores add plenty of value for the consumer. Do-nothing middlement would be the ones between Wal-Mart and the relevant factories, and I'd lay money the number of those has been undergoing a dramatic decrease in the past decade.

      Given how screwed your understanding of business is in the first twenty or so words, I'm not even going to begin to try to take apart the rest of your message. I merely invite you to put your clearly awesome business skills to the test someday.
    10. Re:Egads!! by flooey · · Score: 4, Funny

      You'd be hard pressed to find a better retailer with a liberal return policy as theirs.

      You should try Costco sometime. You can return things there they don't even sell.

    11. Re:Egads!! by Sloppy · · Score: 4, Insightful
      True. Wal-Mart is the ultimate symbol of what is wrong with the world today: TOO MANY MIDDLE MEN WHO DO NOTHING IN TERMS OF ORIGINAL PRODUCTION.

      This has to be a joke. Wal-Mart is the antithesis of "too many middlemen" as they have crunched out so much inefficiency. They have built a distribution and logistics structure that would shame most armies. You might even say that Wal-Mart is Wal-Mart's product, and if it's not original, it sure is highly evolved.

      --
      As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
    12. Re:Egads!! by cluckshot · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I don't understand the bizarre obsession with the concept that an employer should not maintain the integrity and functionality of their greatest capital asset. If the cash register goes to ailing, rest assured major efforts will be made promptly to bring it back into functionality. If the inventory computer craps out watch the dollars fly to fix the mess. Let the man running it get sick watch the "capitalists" bitch moan and complain that they cannot simply dump that person in the ditch and get another functional unit. Capitalism preserves its capital assets and a decent company realizes that its human beings are its highest from of capital.

      I love the standard slashdot responses running around that we in the USA are running some sort of capitalist economy and it is some how "the best." Honestly there are many things we do in the USA that are great and right. Our "capitalism" isn't one of them. Right now investors can chuck their money into stocks but there is little or no hope that they will be paid back in return as the company makes money. Here is the Walmart Example following

      Walmart braggs about its associates being stock holders. They pay a dividend far lower than may be returned on Government Bonds or from even a simple CD at the bank. All of this would appear to be a company with marginal earnings. Actually Walmart finances its stores through the various Industrial Development Boards. They don't own the stores or even pay for them. Walmart then demands tax free status to open up in a town. As such they don't even pay to educate the next generation of kids to work in their stores or be their customers. They factor their inventory on a 60 day delayed after sale payment schema. All of this said you can do your earnings calculations on a company that has no investment or risk and is making markup on all sales. The company then has an inventory turn rate of about 90 times a year with a net (after all those stinking worthless employees -- for effect) markup on each sale of nearly 40%. Doing the simple math here they are a company earning about 90 * 40% a year on an cost basis against an investment that is not theirs and is so low that ROI is impossible to do anything but estimate. This means that the company is earning about 3600% against 100% of the entire investment of all parties in the store. They against their part which may be even less than 10% of that are earning at least 36,000%.

      The upshot of this is that they build massive devices in the supply chain to scrape off this profit and avoid stockholders, tax entities and other factors that the are obligated to pay.

      To be blunt capitalism is where investors get paid for earnings. That is what Walmart will never do. They are structured to defraud their stockholders.

      --
      Never Politically Correct ~ I prefer the facts If you don't like what I say, get a life, or comment yourself.
    13. Re:Egads!! by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Furthermore, WalMart actuall 'Flattens' the layers of middlemen that consumers otherwise have to obtain their purchased through. WalMart deals directly with the producers of goods, not through several layers of bullshit like the Mom & Pop operations. As a result, they keep the 'middle' costs down.

      This pisses off a whole consortium of 'gimmie' operators in the middle, and the scale of their operation terrifies the Union Bosses who want to be the main 'big guys' and maintain their industry-wide labor cartel.

    14. Re:Egads!! by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 2

      Costco pays their employees about three times as much as WalMart, and since their sales volume per employee is about three times that of WalMart, it seems they extract that much more labor out of each employee. The people who demand that WalMart start paying their employees 'equivalent pay to what other stores offer' need to help decide which 2/3 of the WalMart staff should be fired. Until they have this answer, they should (how should I put this?) FOAD (no, that's too harsh).

    15. Re:Egads!! by steve_bryan · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Unfortunately for Apple, Disney would sooner tell them to jump off a bridge than to ruin a relationship with Walmart.

      For your edification you might want to review some relevant facts. The single largest stockholder in Disney is Steve Jobs. In a related fact Steve Jobs is on the Board of Directors of Disney. So you expect Steve Jobs to tell Apple to jump off a bridge?

      In any case Disney is a huge company that doesn't need Walmart to be successful. These strong arm tactics are probably very threatening to smaller companies but Disney is not a mom and pop operation.

    16. Re:Egads!! by causality · · Score: 2, Informative

      Well I would have moderated, but I think this one needed to be said.

      The custom of employers providing health insurance is not because someone, in a vacuum, said "hey, what a great idea this would be!". Not by any means.

      During World War II, the USA federal government froze wages. This meant that if you were an employer, you could no longer decide for yourself how much you will pay your employees. If you wanted to attract the best talent, you had to find other ways to make them want to work for you. In order to get around this restriction, companies began to provide benefits for free that the employee would otherwise have to pay for, as a method other than wage that could be considered a part of that employee's compensation.

      This, like the federal income tax, was a "temporary" wartime measure (like the Patriot Act of today). The result has been that now you have no buying power as an individual; the companies who go to health insurance providers and say "I have 50,000 employees, let's discuss price" are able to obtain decent group rates but the single individual is not. If you are in the USA, try shopping around for individual health insurance sometime -- it's ridiculously expensive. This is a form of inertia that has made employer-provided health insurance difficult to reverse. This also means that your employer has more leverage over you, and is part of why companies are not nearly as worried about losing employees as employees are worried about getting fired (which to me is one of the flaws in how business is done; unions are a horrible hack that take on agendas of their own and usually fail to address this).

      It does, however, serve as a great reminder for those of you who think that the government's definition of "temporary" means anything less than "until the Sun starts running out of nuclear fuel."

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    17. Re:Egads!! by aero6dof · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What about car insurance? What about interior decorating? What about groceries? Does In'n'Out Burger provide these? No, of course they don't. You have a bizarre obsession with employers providing health insurance -- but not car insurance, interior decorating, or groceries.

      With our current economic system in the US, employers paying for health insurance is the encouraged societal route for health care. Employers can write off the cost of the benefit, not so to the same degree for an individual employee. Employers have better clout to negotiate with armies of health insurer beauracrats and lawyers. Again, its not as balanced for an individual employee. I would far prefer to select my own health insurance if there wasn't a tax penalty for me to do so, and if consumer protections for individual health consumers vs the insurance industry were stronger.

      The other items you mention are bought and sold on markets where the balance between buyer and seller are much more balanced.

    18. Re:Egads!! by squidsuk · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Grandparent goes a bit too far, while some original production is of course necessary, middlemen and distribution can also add value, depending on circumstances, exactly as you describe:

      While I have issues with Wally World, this is not one of them. Wal-Mart performs a valuable service: they stock thousands of items on their shelves that I really don't want to have to buy straight from the manufacturer. They handle some of their own shipping and distributing, i.e. moving stuff around. Sure, I could drive to another state to buy something from the manufacturer directly. I could also pay a shipping company such as UPS to deliver it for me. Or, I could go to a store that stocks it on their shelves (e.g. Wal-Mart) and have the convenience of a short drive from my house 24 hours a day to buy it.

      ... however, this makes sense for products which are physical and tangible - it's not clear that it makes sense any more for intangible products which can be distributed at effectively zero cost. That's pretty much there now, for music/mp3's, even videos and films, software, and pretty much anything reduced to digital form. There's no reason to ever remove anything from the catalog, all you need is a slick interface and decent search engine.

      Thus there's no longer any value-add to being a middleman for a wholly intangible product - maybe for a version of that intangible with a nice pressed disk, a nice case and professionally produced insert, but then those tangibles are what you're really paying for, not the digital bits on the disk. Sure, it's disruptive technology, and there are established players whose business model is being wiped out - but that's normal, to find that the normal state of the world is to be changing, and it's counterproductive (and, in the longer run, pointless) to try and freeze everything like a fly in amber and imagine it will always be the same

    19. Re:Egads!! by zer0halo · · Score: 2, Funny

      ./ readers buy diapers???

      --
      Impossible is nothing.
    20. Re:Egads!! by cubicledrone · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Nobody forces people to do business with Wal-Mart.

      After all the other stores have been run out of business?

      Nobody forces people to work at Wal-Mart.

      After all the other stores have been run out of business?

      Nobody forces people to shop at Wal-Mart.

      After all the other stores have been run out of business?

      Don't do business with Wal-Mart

      After all the other stores have been run out of business?

      If you made a product that you wanted everyone to have, you'd be salivating if Wal-Mart wanted to distribute your product.

      After all the other stores have been run out of business.

      At least to get to the negotiating phase.

      After all the other stores have been run out of business?

      --
      Business isn't willing to pay for products, innovation and careers, so we get brands, mortgage commercials and layoffs.
  2. What about Amazon? by Psykechan · · Score: 4, Interesting

    So studios that sell movies through iTunes get boycotted by the 500lb Retailer but studios that sell movies through Amazon's Unbox are fine.

    Either they aren't particularly worried about Amazon being a threat or they have it in for Apple.

    1. Re:What about Amazon? by El+Torico · · Score: 2, Informative
      ...but studios that sell movies through Amazon's Unbox are fine.

      Which is very odd because Amazon and Target are partners. This press release is from 2001 - http://news.com.com/2110-1017-275199.html

      --
      In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is usually crucified.
    2. Re:What about Amazon? by Itchy+Rich · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Either they aren't particularly worried about Amazon being a threat or they have it in for Apple.

      Amazon are still limited by the fact that they're selling boxed media that have to be stored, tracked, delivered by hand, etc. The fact that you're buying the same boxed media online instead of in a shop is just a matter for regular competition, territory that Walmart is familiar with. Apple is distributing media entirely digitally, which means the costs and profit margins are very different. I suspect that's what's scaring Walmart.

    3. Re:What about Amazon? by ThisIsForReal · · Score: 3, Informative

      Yeah, I guess you haven't heard of "unbox" either. No problem, most of the rest of the world has, too and it should hopefully go away soon.

      --
      -THE END-
    4. Re:What about Amazon? by CaptainZapp · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Where is Sony Connect available?

      See, that's exactly my point :)

      As a matter of fact, I only tried it once and got the following result:

      We have performed a system check and detected that you need to download and install the item highlighted in red below to use CONNECT. Please do this now and then enter the site again. [the item highlited is Internet Explorer, of course]

      The copyright notice is Sony UK, I'm based in Switzerland.

      Since Sony is on my eternal shitlist of companies I will never again do business with, I didn't really bother to research the issue. My opinion is that you will wind up with a lot of expensive data trash in a few years when the service falters.

      --
      ich bin der musikant

      mit taschenrechner in der hand

      kraftwerk

  3. Whoa whoa whoa... by HoosierPeschke · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This seems to me that Wal-mart is using its position as a major distributor to strong arm against its would be competitors. It's not quite a monopoly (read Target, K-Mart, etc...) so is there any legal avenue to take against Wal-mart for this kind of action (other than consumer action which doesn't work so well when dealing with lower prices)?

    --
    Mr. Universe: "They can't stop the signal, Mal. They can never stop the signal."
    1. Re:Whoa whoa whoa... by RobotRunAmok · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This seems to me that Wal-mart is using its position as a major distributor to strong arm against its would be competitors. It's not quite a monopoly (read Target, K-Mart, etc...) so is there any legal avenue to take against Wal-mart for this kind of action (other than consumer action which doesn't work so well when dealing with lower prices)?

      Uhhh, no. Happily.

      What is it with you litigious anti-Walmart goons?

      It's NOT a monopoly, as you stated. Plenty of other big stores in the same business, competing on selection and price and service and all those other B-School 101 points. When Martha Stewart made her exclusivity deal with K-Mart, I'm sure she knew that Walmart would be pushing all her cookbooks to the back shelves and start promoting Rachel Ray's. She makes her deals, she takes her chances. As do the studios. Risk, Reward, Business. How do they do it on your planet?

      What, because iTunes delivers movies tek-no-log-ee-cully ("oooh, shiny!"), all the brick-and-mortar operations that have pumped truckloads of money into the studios' pockets over the years are supposed to just roll over and cave?

      "Gosh, dern, there, Mister Studio Boss, shucks, we're just a simple uber-ultra-mega-chain from Arkansas, don't know nothing 'bout birthin' no downloads. Shure, we brung ya to the dance, bought ya dinner, drinks, and flowers, but it's OK if ya want to leave with that there Miss Apple. We understand, she shore is purty!"

      Are you naive, blindly hate Walmart cuz you're some too-cool-for-the-country urban Goth, or do you just like litigation? (It's OK, you can check off more than one.)

      Oh, wait, I know! It's unfair because Walmart uses under-age Chinese vagrants to put the DVD's on the shelves. Is that it? Would you feel better knowing that these were the same under-age Chinese vagrants that Apple uses to build its iPods? Would that make it all better?

    2. Re:Whoa whoa whoa... by Zadaz · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Monopolies are not illegal in America.

      However, there are antitrust laws that this certainly seems in the realm of. Not that they're enforced, but there are laws...

    3. Re:Whoa whoa whoa... by KDR_11k · · Score: 2, Informative

      You can be found guilty of antitrust violations without even having a majority share of the market, you just need to be large enough. 40% is already enough to be found a monopoly. The sole fact that Wal Mart can pressure suppliers like this already demonstrates that they are large enough to count as a monopoly in the eyes of the antitrust laws.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    4. Re:Whoa whoa whoa... by WilliamSChips · · Score: 2, Informative

      I don't like Walmart because if Walmart decides to stop selling your product your profits will fall down the toilet and if you are publically traded you die.

      --
      Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
    5. Re:Whoa whoa whoa... by KDR_11k · · Score: 2, Informative

      The law prefers a practical instead of a literal interpretation of "monopoly".

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    6. Re:Whoa whoa whoa... by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 2, Insightful
      What, because iTunes delivers movies tek-no-log-ee-cully ("oooh, shiny!"), all the brick-and-mortar operations that have pumped truckloads of money into the studios' pockets over the years are supposed to just roll over and cave?
      If they cannot compete fairly, and do not want to get into the new distribution channels business themselves, that is precisely the fate they deserve.
    7. Re:Whoa whoa whoa... by xenocide2 · · Score: 2, Funny

      "Gosh, dern, there, Mister Studio Boss, shucks, we're just a simple uber-ultra-mega-chain from Arkansas, don't know nothing 'bout birthin' no downloads. Shure, we brung ya to the dance, bought ya dinner, drinks, and flowers, but it's OK if ya want to leave with that there Miss Apple. We understand, she shore is purty!"

      Of course, one could interpret them returning all that stock as an admission that itunes is a cheaper delivery system that they can't compete with. Or maybe an angry ex-girlfriend throwing all the crap you left at her place (physical DVDs) on your lawn. I'm not sure why walmart should be stuck with the cost of overproduction, if they had a contractual agreement that allowed them to return stock they won't expect to sell.

      --
      I Browse at +4 Flamebait

      Open Source Sysadmin

    8. Re:Whoa whoa whoa... by richdun · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Wal-Mart is a monopsony, not a monopoly. It's theoretically not supposed to ever happen, unlike monopolies, which can exist quite readily in industries that have high costs to entry, are rapidly emerging markets, etc.

      Monopsonies are when one buyer has all or an unusually high portion of the market. Monopolies refer to one seller having all or an unusually high portion of the market.

      In theory, a monopsony shouldn't be able to exist for long, because in a free and efficient market, there will always be someone willing to pay just a little bit more for your product until there are a great number of them buying, thus ending the monopsony. Wal-Mart has found a hole in the market, and has been exploiting it for a long, long time. Their distribution channel efficiencies and unreal growth rate, coupled with the poor management of traditional department stores and other discounters (like KSearsMart), allowed them to build a ridiculous number of stores in areas where there is little to no other competition. It's remarkable when you think about how many large markets (i.e., big cities, like Chicago, New York, LA, San Fran, etc.) that Wal-Mart hasn't been able to get into, while Target and others have, yet they still command the market position from an almost all-rural and suburban penetration.

      Is what they do right? Maybe not. Will it eventually bring down the lower ends of economy? If let go, quite possibly - artificially or dramatically and unilaterally dropping consumer good prices and payrolls can have negative effects just like inflation. But would have they been able to get into this position had everyone else done their jobs, cut out such obviously inefficient distribution methods and such? Very unlikely.

      If the US had been in a different economic standing in the 1980s and early 1990s, when Wal-Mart was charging, a quick LBO of Kmart or one of the mega-department store chains could have easily fixed this. Kinda reminds of another area with obvious inefficiencies where one economic swing could bring an LBO on - though in the case of Microsoft, leveraging that much would be earth-shattering.

  4. Good move for walmart by QuantumFTL · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Walmart got where it is today by pressuring suppliers (often right out of business) and if anyone can break the will of the MPAA on something, it's Walmart. Considering that Walmart can't (currently) handle this kind of digital distribution model, and that they are often fueled by impulse/other buying when someone goes to purchase electronics and entertainment, it's in their best interest to stamp down a more convenient distribution system.

    I think it's a good move for Walmart (but not for us) because everyone knows that Walmart is "evil" (read: more able to use power in a negative fashion than most companies, which are relative lightweights) and most people don't give a damn because that's how they afford all their stuff. I doubt there will be serious backlash, come monday everyone will still be going to fill up their big boxes at Walmart.

    1. Re:Good move for walmart by JasonBee · · Score: 2, Informative

      Sorry, but the post "I'm going to have to disagree with you now." is WRONG.

      A food company's subsidiary (that rhymes with "bestlee") in Germany capitulated to Wal-Mart on pricing for one of their premium product lines a few years ago, meaning Wal-Mart's prices were FAR lower than every grocery store's prices across the country. Eventually the smaller retailers did what they had to do...stop selling that product line, or demand the same prices...which of course would only mean Wal-Mart would ask for even lower prices.

      This subsidiary was the company's worst performing subsidiary across the world...despite operating in what is historically a large and strong food market. The only saving grace for the company was that Wal-Mart pulled out of Germany entirely saying they couldn't make a profit! The company likely tried very hard to prevent that happening anywhere else on the planet as far as Wal-Mart is concerned.

      Don't be mistaken - Wal-Mart tries to controls their suppliers with an iron fist. The food company mentioned above is always in a battle to maintain price and profit levels against Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart will and can destroy any smaller target it deems it must destroy in order to control pricing. It happens and if you work in marketing for ANY supplier that is a fortune 500 company you know what I mean.

      JB

    2. Re:Good move for walmart by Saint+Fnordius · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think you mean a Swiss conglomerate. They ain't German, snookums.

      Apropos Germany, Wal-Mart has given up for good its attempts to penetrate the cutthroat market there. They had the whole "American interloper" going against them, strong worker protection laws that hamstrung them and a niche that was already filled with homegrown discount chains. As I understand it, there are other EU countries where they haven't had the success they wanted.

      I think the defeat they suffered in Germany has made them paranoid, thus the preemptive attack on Apple. Amazon's Unbox system isn't as easy to slam due to the more draconic terms in Amazon's DRM and the fact that Amazon is partnered with Target. Attacking Amazon would be attacking a rival who would all too eagerly sell those titles that Wal-Mart drops.

  5. I'm going to have to disagree with you now.,.,. by way2trivial · · Score: 2, Interesting

    from everything I've read, Walmart has a lot of cutting edge large system/enterprise technology and it staff,

    Why can't they handle this kind of distribution model? they have a music store, they have a on-line photo gifts store- they have-- gosh -every feature amazon has except panache...

    --
    every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
    1. Re:I'm going to have to disagree with you now.,.,. by dubiousmike · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Walmart has gotten their logistics to the point where they automatically make 2 to 3 percent more than anyone else for the same product even if Walmart and say Sears sell at cost. That means that no matter what Walmart makes more selling the same product.

      Walmart can't make the same money when the distribution model isn't physical, at least not yet.

      Walmart uses their selling power to get what they want from manufacturers. If your DVD doesn't get sold in Walmart, you automatically lose something like 15% of potential sales. Disney needs Walmart. Amazon doesn't.

  6. Studios Testicularly Challenged? by GaryPatterson · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I can't help feeling that the studios should call the Wal-Mart bluff here.

    Wal-Mart may hate the idea and threaten and moan, but if all the studios jump onto the iTMS then Wal-Mart will buckle. They can't drop their entire DVD line unless they want to drop a whole market.

    The power rests with the studios here, but they're scared.

    1. Re:Studios Testicularly Challenged? by WhiteWolf666 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The question is whether or not the MPAA will do what it must do: Guarantee online distribution.

      The MPAA is the movie's industry cartel. They are SUPPOSED to strength the industries negotitating power when it comes to disputes like this. As a group, if the MPAA stood up to Walmart, not to say, "Fuck You", but instead to say, "Wally, we can't do that", it would change the market.

      Unfortunately, I truly believe that the MPAA spends all of its time pursuing piracy and the like, and couldn't be bothered to support innovative technologies.

      --
      WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
  7. What I'd like to know by Paul+Carver · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The article conspicuously fails to state whether Wal-Mart was correct or not.

    The article assumes that Wal-Mart sent DVDs back to Disney out of spite, but what if Wal-Mart merely made an accurate assessment of the situation? Did Wal-Mart sell out of the whatever titles they returned? Were there customer complaints about lack of these titles? Or was Wal-Mart correct in its assessment that the demand would be lower?

    I don't know if it's right or wrong, but from what I've read Wal-Mart requires its vendors to agree that they'll take back overstock if demand is less than expected. If Wal-Mart can send back "cases and cases" of DVDs and still keep the titles on the shelves than they're simply behaving sensibly.

    If they can't keep the titles on the shelves then this seems to be a classic case of "cut off your nose to spite your face". We're talking purchase here, right? Not rental? If you're renting a DVD and they don't have the one you want you might rent a different one. If you're shopping to buy a specific DVD, I can't imagine that you'd simply buy something else if the store doesn't have the one you're looking for.

    We're not talking about interchangeable products here. If you want "Lost" on DVD and Wal-Mart doesn't have it you'll go elsewhere. Personally I find deepdiscountdvd.com to be a great source, but there are countless others. What percentage of the US is really so cut off from civilization that if Wal-Mart doesn't carry "Lost" they can't get it some other way?

    1. Re:What I'd like to know by Shadow99_1 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      As for "What percentage of the US is really so cut off from civilization that if Wal-Mart doesn't carry "Lost" they can't get it some other way?", well I happen to have done some travellign around my state recently (Pennsylvania) and in alot of small towns all there is to buy such things (heck most things) from is Wal-Mart! Wal-Mart killed the mom & pop stores there and no big companies want to come play there, so Wal-Mart is it... For just about everything.

      The sad part is most people don't seem to care... I needed to get gas while driving through one small city (about 6-9k people live there) and since all I'd seen whiel coming through town to shop at was a Wal-Mart, I aksed if their was anywhere else to pick up a few items. The reply was "Why would we need anything except Wal-Mart? They carry everything we'd ever need." It took cities with a population of at least 20k people to interest most other bussiness to be there and this still didn't offer much choice (2 large chain stores, isn't much better than 1). A significant portion of my state is filled with little sub-20k pop cities (I'd guess upwards of 60% of the state in area), figuring the same thing holds true for areas I didn't pass through while travelling around that's alot of people beholden to Wal-Mart for all there needs...

      --
      we are all invisible unless we choose otherwise
  8. Let Wal-Mart Go by alchemist68 · · Score: 3, Funny

    I wouldn't mind seeing Wal-Mart suffer a little - after all, most of its merchandise comes from COMMUNIST CHINA! Is *THIS* the new American Way?!!! I think NOT!

    Boycott Wal-Mart!

    Boycott Sam's Club!

    Girlcotting is not the same thing!

    1. Re:Let Wal-Mart Go by canuck57 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Boycott Sam's Club!

      I will boycott neither Wal-Mart nor Sam's Club. In fact looking forward to Sam's club coming to our city to kick some stupid price gouging by the local business.

      What convinced me is I had to get a set of tires fast from Sam's in the US. Later we had a flat, took it into a local Canadian Walmart and when they fixed it free! This was the only tire purchase I ever had go right. I purchased from a Canadian company years earlier and it took me two years, 4 wheel alignments and tire replacements later to get it settled. On top of that it cost me more.

      Judge a company on its quality, price, service and how many people it employs, not on local political BS as local rich get upset that they can no longer charge 3-4 times the price. In part why Sam's/Walmart is successful. BTW, they sell the same stuff as everyone else.

  9. Yeah, but it's the NY Post by Swift2001 · · Score: 5, Informative

    Whoever said it was accurate? Reuters has anotherr story. http://today.reuters.com/news/articleinvesting.asp x?view=CN&storyID=2006-09-22T233423Z_01_N22181208_ RTRIDST_0_MEDIA-WALMART-STUDIOS-UPDATE-2.XML&rpc=6 6&type=qcna

  10. Comment count on the front page? by Rik+Sweeney · · Score: 3, Informative

    This is completely offtopic

    That's odd, all the stories after Microsoft Vista User Interface Guidelines Published don't show the comment count...

    --
    Summation 2
    1. Re:Comment count on the front page? by mulhollandj · · Score: 2, Funny

      Why are people always complaining about Vista breaking everything?

  11. Walmart is evil by nurb432 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If they run around threatening suppliers like this, they should be shut down for improper business practices, or at the least boycotted by america for being jerks..

    Yes, i realize that until they are declared a monopoly that they have a right to choose who they do business with, but it doesnt make it right.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    1. Re:Walmart is evil by Sloppy · · Score: 2, Funny
      If they run around threatening suppliers like this, they should be shut down for improper business practices, or at the least boycotted by america for being jerks..

      Just as it should be illegal for you to tell your boss "Give me a raise or I quit." It is immoral for two parties to try to negotiate things without there being a guarantee that the transaction will happen, no matter how much the parties disagree about the terms. We need the central committee to step in and make sure that no one ever threatens to not do business with someone else.

      I mean, it's right there in the 5 year plan: hard-working Hollywood actors are assigned the job of making movies, and Wal-Mart is assigned the job of reselling those movies so that our comrade actors can have food on their tables. If Wal-Mart doesn't sell the movies, how will our actors eat, and how will our comrade workers get such a critical entertainment resource? Such arrogant defiance of The Plan should not be tolerated.

      --
      As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
  12. Re:Always low prices... by Bob_Villa · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I agree with that, my wife and I used to always shop at Walmart Supercenters because we thought it was cheaper. We had been shopping at Kroger and going to Walmart just for items we couldn't get at Kroger. But I started to notice that Walmart's prices were different for the same items every time we came. We buy diapers, wipes, and we used to buy formula. On those three items the prices would vary by a few cents to 1.00 with each visit, almost randomly. Sometimes higher, sometimes lower. I started looking around the rest of the store on visits and noticed it was happening to many items we bought and sometimes our visits were more expensive than if we just went to Kroger and a nearby Target for the rest. Also, items marked 'Rolled back' are sometimes more expensive than they were the last week. Weird, isn't it?

    Target seems a little higher priced, but their prices stay the same, rather than changing from day to day, or they don't do it as frequently and I don't notice it. Now we just shop at our Kroger and Target and we buy only diapers and nothing else from Walmart because you can't trust their prices.

    I also don't like them strongarming companies like this or how badly they pay their workers. I also know people who work there or who have and the managers will fire you if you don't check enough people per hour, or don't do various other things as fast as you can, and they pay so low the workers have to take Medicare because they can't afford the prices on the more expensive policies. Walmart is definitely wrong for America. Their low prices gimmick is a sham and at some point this company will have to act more ethical, I hope. Shame on you, Walmart!

  13. Funny, I just finished reading a book..... by 8127972 · · Score: 3, Informative

    .... On this topic called the Wal-Mart Effect:

    http://www.amazon.com/Wal-Mart-Effect-Powerful-Tra nsforming-American/dp/1594200769

    Basically, the author looks at Wal-Mart's tactics in terms of squeezing it's suppliers to get the absolute lowest price and figures that while consumers benefit from this (even if they don't shop there), it doesn't exactly make Wal-Mart "evil." But there are troubling aspects to their behaviour that gives one cause to pause so to speak (like how they treat offshore workers for example).

    Having said that, I think they'll find that Apple may be a different sort of challenge. I don't think studios will cave the same way that Wal-Mart's suppliers usually do.

    --
    This is my opinion. To make sure you don't steal it, it's covered by the DMCA.
  14. Made with Pride... by Bayoudegradeable · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Anyone remember the days when Sam Walton was alive? MADE WITH PRIDE IN THE USA! You used to see that all over the store... there was an entire movement based on this, it wasn't just a Wal-Mart thing. My father's textile manufacturing company was part of this as well. Don't need to tell you that his business went under a few years back. Anyway, go through Wal-Mart today. Made with pride in the USA? What a joke! Poor Sam must be rolling over in his last-ever-made-in-America pine box. Wal-Mart has gone so China that as an entity Wal-Mart is China's #4 buyer of goods... Wal-Mart, in a top ten list of COUNTRIES, comes in at #4. And if you think Wal-Mart plays hardball with suppliers here... In China the labor movement doesn't exist; workers rights, workers comp (ha!) and such don't exist. Lose an arm... so sorry, no job for you. Given those conditions one can only imagine what factories, suppliers to Wal-Mart, do when Wal-Mart says lower prices. If there were two factories that made plastic bowls and both wanted to sell to Wal-Mart. The cost cutting, the near slave labor conditions that would emerge to give one factory an "edge" can't paint a pretty picture. To think that Wal-Mart actually influences working conditions and helps to suppress rights and compensation for workers in China is dreadful. Made with pride in the USA? Hardly.

    --
    Sig Registration Form 34c_766(a) submitted to Ministry of Signature Management. Approval pending.
  15. Except they say they aren't... by BMonger · · Score: 2, Informative

    Wal-Mart says they didn't say that...

    http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?typ e=domesticNews&storyid=2006-09-22T185622Z_01_WEN58 36_RTRUKOC_0_US-MEDIA-WALMART-STUDIOS.xml&src=rss& rpc=22

  16. So let me get this straight by AC-x · · Score: 4, Funny

    Wal-mart are worried that they'll sell less DVDs, so they counter this by pulling DVDs off the shelves...

    Good one Wal-mart.

  17. Walmart wants something else by hellfire · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Walmart wants attention or something else they aren't telling the general public. Neither side wants to stop selling disney stuff. Disney could easy turn around and go somewhere else and exploit all other retailers, but that would require work Disney doesn't want to do, and ost them money they don't want to spend, and Walmart doesn't want to get rid of ~20% of their media sales just because they don't like the iTunes store. Disney would come out on top of a silly thing like this if they actually wanted to fight it out in the market, but not without losing a little share price.

    My bet is someone at Walmart asked to talk with the Board of directors at Disney, and the board snubbed them. So Walmart punched them in the arm with this little stunt like a petulant child and is demanding attention. The real life answer to this is to ignore it, but I'm sure they'll have a meeting now and work something out.

    Personally I hope they eat each other alive but whatever, that won't happen.

    --

    "All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"

  18. Wal-Mart has no leverage by foo+fighter · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Wal-Mart, for once, has no leverage here. If customers can't get The Little Mermaid super platinum eternal edition from Wal-Mart, they'll go down the street to Target or Kmart or Amazon.

    I can't imagine studios would lose money if Wal-mart didn't carry their albums, especially if they replace physical sales revenue with digital. Of course the studios would like to keep physical and digital revenue flowing, but steady revenues are better than declining revenues.

    If the studios did cave to this threat they are short sighted and craven.

    --
    obviously no deficiencies vs. no obvious deficiencies
  19. Better news links by PsychosisC · · Score: 3, Informative

    I'm sorry... but this article is drivel. I mean, this is bad for slashdot. It's a month old story, from a joke of a newspaper source.

    This is a bit of an old story... CNN.com allready has a story about how Wal-Mart is looking into opening its own movie downloads. It makes sense, seeing as they allready have a working music download service.

    The article posted is a bit... Let's just say that the Businesweek article covering this has a much less "Wal-Mart is EEEEVIL" ring to it. I know it feels good to pat yourself on the back with the Coorporate hate feelings, but this NY Post article has a pretty blatant and nasty slant that shouldn't have make it to the slashdot front page.

  20. Re:I say let them do as they wish by swordgeek · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You're missing an important point. Walmart is a source and cause of the lower class. When Walmart enters an area--especially a lower-middle class area--they drive wages down. They FORCE people to shop there, because they have no choice after their buying power has been reduced.

    Furthermore, they way that they can afford such low prices is by squeezing the suppliers and producers. How's the farming industry in the US right now? Most farmers can barely afford to make ends meet, and it's not because they're buying premium goods at premium stores, it's because they're being told "we'll pay you 70% of fair market value, and you have no choice since we're the biggest buyer in the nation."

    Consider how well they've benefited Vlassic, as laid out in this article:
    http://www.fastcompany.com/online/77/walmart.html

    Walmart isn't about savings--it's about false savings, and short-term cash in pocket driving long-term economic ruin.

    --

    "People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
  21. Re:That's just great by Xyrus · · Score: 2, Funny

    Agreed. This is like watching two inmates fighting it out for who gets the rights to your dumper.

    You can only hope they knock eachother out. :P

    ~X~

    --
    ~X~
  22. Re:Always low prices... by WhiteWolf666 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This is a major problem with shopping???

    Christ almighty, get out of the big box stores, and go shop around at conventional grocery stores and little vegetable shops.

    Maybe it's all stuff I learned from my father, but you save MORE money by shopping at a series of "normal" stores, buying a few items you need at the places that tend to offer the best prices (and I'm not talking about cherry-picking the specials each week, but just heading to the stores that tend to offer the best boneless chicken breat prices, or the best tomatoe prices). Not to mention you get the warm fuzzy of voting with your dollar, and supporting the little guy.

    There's no reason to purchase a huge cart of stuff at one particular store, and especially not at a Super Walmart or a Costco.

    --
    WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
  23. Re:I say let them do as they wish by sheldon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Actually, Wal-Mart is more expensive on many goods. Or they have limited selection and don't have the item you want.

    I prefer Target. I've found them to be cheaper for soap, paper towels, etc. The stores are clean and the clerks are friendly. Unlike wal-Mart. Hell, even 40 year old K-Mart stores look cleaner than Wal-Mart.

  24. admission of monopolistic practices by oohshiny · · Score: 2, Insightful

    WalMart is threatening to hurt a competitor by reducing the amount of business they do in specific ways. This is pretty much a clear admission of monopolistic practices, because only in a monopoly situation does this sort of behavior lead to a better financial outcome.

  25. Is the Vitriol added? by Marc_Hawke · · Score: 2, Informative

    Are you sure they're 'threatening?' Are you sure they are trying to 'use their muscle.' Are you sure they aren't just reading the market?

    If I was a retailer and I saw 'supply' magically expanded at a HUGE rate while demand stayed mostly the same, I would want to get rid of some of my inventory quick. If I had the option of giving it back to someone else I'd do that. I might be a little angry at the lost revenue, but it doesn't mean I'm using dirty tactics or, 'trying to send a message.' I'm just evaluating the market and adjusting supplies.

    Saying "Selling movies online will cut into DVD sales" is like saying, "If you open another McDonalds across the street, the existing McDonalds won't have as much business." That's not a threat.

    They could have put a little heat on it. "Excuse me, we had a deal, you sent me this amount of product under false pretenses." That still seems complete reasonable, rational, and not in the least bit 'monopolistic' or 'threatening.'

    After reading the article, I'm even more sure that Wal-mart wasn't trying to force them into anything. It was just letting them know that demand for DVD's would drop if they started selling music online. It sounds like Wal-Mart is thinking clearly, and Hollywood is wanting their cake and to eat it to.

    --
    --Welcome to the Realm of the Hawke--
  26. In this case by sensei+moreh · · Score: 2, Funny

    the enemy of my enemy is my enemy

    --
    Geology - it's not rocket science; it's rock science
  27. The battle has started for Middle Earth by Sassinak · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It seems that everyone has it in for apple. From the people on the street that say "Don't go ipod, buy something else" (ummm.. no one is making a public move relating to windows on that.. and there are FAR more windows users than podHeads).

    To the music business that keeps wanting to raise prices because they feel they are not getting "enough" money.. (dispite the fact that they actually save money from the elimination of the distribution/packaging/shipping/retail costs.. but oh well, sure, they need another solid gold toilet)

    To the movie business (ditto above, except its a solid gold dildo)

    And now walmart is scared because someone might out-price them. Forgetting the simple fact that a sizable chunk of the people that shop in walmart are not heavy on-line purchasers (for other goods and services) so they loose a little money in one department but make it up in another. (it would be better for them to partner with apple, like they do now with the itunes credits) and clip a little off the top for those impulse purchases, than whine that we are not making enough money because the big bad apple (funny huh?) is taking our lunch money.

    Give me a break wal-mart, so you lost a little ground in a particular market because of a different distribution channel. Big Whoop.

    Its been that way all throughout history. (the milkman lost his job because of the grocery store, the news paper boy lost his job because of mailing lists, the indie bands lost their money because of the RIAA, etc...)

    --
    God made the Idiot for practice, and then He made the School Board -- Mark Twain Look for http://Thebar.steelbeachca
  28. Welcome to the First Battle... by Chris+Tucker · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ...of the Age of The Replicator.

    Today, I can download a perfect image of a DVD. I can burn it to a blank DVD that will work in my DVD player, just like the storebought version.

    I can also take that DVD, and, if I have the right printer, print a full color "label" right onto it, just like the storebought version.

    I can also download the keepcase cover insert and print that as well, so that the keepcase from the stack of empty AOL CD keepcases in my closet will look just like the storebought version.

    Tomorrow, I will be able to legally download the DVD, the DVD "Label" and the DVD case cover insert and make my own DVD with case, with the blessings of the movie studio. (They're taking the halting baby steps already, via iTunes. They'll eventually see that there's money to be made by letting the consumer do all the work of making the DVD.)

    Essentially, I have a replicator that takes data and makes a product in my home at my demand. A DVD in a keepcase.

    While I don't think I'll live to see a "Transmetropolitan"-esque 'maker' in every home, it IS coming. I regret that I won't be around to hear the howls of outrage from WalMart over that leap of technology.

    I won't regret, however, the societal upheaval that will occur when anyone can have anything, as long as they pay the power bill and can keep the source matter bin full.

    Oh, and the lawsuits over cracking the DRM for the makers will be hysterically entertaining. I'll miss following them, as well.

    Seriously, though. Who neds Gap, Old Navy, Victoria's Secret, Bananna Republic or Levi as a physical place to go and buy something, when you can download the maker source code for a fee, tweak that code for yourself for size and color, and push a button to have that garment drop down the chute 30 minutes later?

    Go to Apple.com, pay a fee, get the source for the new iPod, and there it is the next day, courtesy of your home maker.

    What need have you for the Apple Store? And what need has Apple for factories in China?

    Yeah, the world economy is going to get very sporty for a while once the maker is perfected.

    And if it can make anything, why, I can have ALL THE HEROIN AND POT AND E that I want!

    I can have all the prescription medicines I want!

    I can have all the Coca-Cola I want!

    Imagine THAT table full of lawyers. The PRC, The Taliban and Colombian govts (Opium and Cocaine), EVERY pharm hypercorps, and Coca-Cola, INC.

    All trying to maintain their monopolies over atoms and molecules that have been stitched together in a particular manner and that, by tradition, belong to them and them alone.

    Good luck, guys. You'll need it.

    --
    Guaranteed! This comment 100% Anthrax free!
  29. Re:"shopping your way out of a job" by dgatwood · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Huh? Companies were moving production overseas decades before Wal-Mart became popular. They would keep doing that even if Wal-Mart died overnight. Blaming off-shoring of manufacturing on Wal-Mart is like blaming off-shoring of technical jobs on Fry's. It's quite possibly the silliest logic I've ever heard.

    Wal-Mart started really being able to apply price pressure by the 1980s. By that time, Japanese automobiles were more popular than American, every toy I bought by then was made in China/Taiwan/Singapore, etc., and this had been true for a couple of decades. The big push towards manufacturing of products overseas began shortly after WWII in the 1950s and 1960s. Wal-Mart didn't even open its first store until 1962.

    I'm not saying Wal-Mart hasn't encouraged some companies to do this, but the fact remains that they would have done so eventually anyway to make a greater profit. Expecting them to do otherwise is like believing in the tooth fairy.

    As to the filing of complaints, some local governments have found they have a way to fight back-just not allowing them to build stores with zoning regs. Granted, not a perfect solution, but it's something that can be done. Say some area does it, some of the people local will still travel to the next town over. But if THAT town does the same, eventually the distance travelled means the consumers will stay put locally and use the smaller stores.

    It's a terrible idea. Most of those local stores are already thoroughly screwed by availability of products on the internet. So now in ten years when they find themselves unable to survive (Ace Hardware and K-Mart in Santa Cruz, anyone?) even without Wal-Mart, those towns will find themselves without any way to buy the things they need to survive and will have to drive large distances to buy basic products.

    Further, lower prices are better for everyone in the long term. All the knee-jerkers say "Oh, look at all the stores that will close" and forget that Wal-Mart brings consolidated shopping, which causes stores to be able to survive that otherwise could not. It brings down prices of groceries and gasoline dramatically. It brings down the overall cost of living dramatically.

    And small stores can survive and even thrive with Wal-Mart because of the proximity effect. Stores physically close to Wal-Mart actually get more business after Wal-Mart moves in. Stores do, however, have to specialize and carry the stuff that Wal-Mart doesn't. Wal-Mart has to cater to general audiences, so it can only provide the most common basic needs in any category. A hardware store does just fine with Wal-Mart next door because it carries lots of stuff that Wal-Mart doesn't and can't---screws and fasteners, higher quality tools, possibly building materials, etc. A clothing store does just fine because teenagers want brand names. And so on.

    The most important thing, though, is that the store owners have to do exactly the opposite of what they usually do. Most of them try moving away from Wal-Mart thinking that they can be closer to the population and thus people will go there instead. Doesn't work that way. People will drive 20 minutes to a Wal-Mart store. That means that the best place for any store to be is within a block or two of Wal-Mart. That's why zoning laws to block Wal-Mart don't work. The end result is that the vast majority of people drive there anyway, then bitch about how much fuel costs.

    It's a shame to see the fraction of a percent of people who are so anti-Wal-Mart spoil it for the rest of us. *Sigh* I guess the loudest voice really is the only one heard... but it shouldn't be.

    --

    Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

  30. "Made with pride" was a joke by sgent · · Score: 4, Informative
    my father was a supplier (actually negotiated the contracts) to Sam's Club & Walmart during that time period.

    Wal-Mart's made with pride campaign meant that if your product was the exact same price or cheaper than the Chinese or Mexican product, it would be carried. One penny more and it was out.

    Wal-Mart was forced to discontinue the campaign after a slew of state AG's sued them for misleading advertising.

  31. Walmart, I have one word for you: by kimvette · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Competition.

    You got where you are by competing and undercutting everyone else, even going to extents such as forcing your suppliers to fire Americans and offshore manufacturing, forcing them in cases to decrease product quality and/or create "budget" models to meet your pricing strategy, and you've pretty much driven other big-box discount stores out of business.

    Now you get miffed when not only are you getting undercut, but you're being undercut by an honest player who isn't bullying the suppliers to the extent that you do?

    Competition. You got where you are through competition, and now that Apple is beating you at the movie game and Target is rabidly nipping at your heels by offering similar pricing and better quality, you're crying wolf? WTF?

    Competition. Sucks for you, but it's good for us.

    --
    The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
  32. Hah! Wal-mart.. by Khyber · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This is the same company that has the "integrity" to take a guitar, and where it flat-out says on the box "Suggested Retail Price $99" and mark it up to $129. They have no reason to bitch about other companies beating their "low prices" when they can't even hide the fact they're over-charging you. Fuck Wal-Mart and anyone associated with them.

    --
    Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
  33. nonsense by zogger · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Every economic indicator shows that globalism and offshoring has hurt the economy. The proof is in the stats, and we have many years to look at now. And they even have to keep fudging them to make it look better than what it really is, I mean really, having to call burger flipping *manufacturing*? c'mon! that's a clue. We are now the largest debtor nation when before the largest creditor nation. that's a clue. The dollar keeps dropping in international value. that's a clue. We have a huge rate of bankruptcy and people staring at losing their pensions.that's a clue. Largest trade deficit ever and growing, sets new records about every quarter. That's a clue. The numbers of people with better paying jobs with benefits keeps dropping, not rising. That's a clue. Savings rates are the worst for more than a full generation. That's a clue. Ya, it started back then, and a lot of us "back then" warned that this is exactly what would happen, and it has. And that's because some of us really *had a clue*. "Back then" I warned folks-anyone who would listen-that the combination of crap built and being too greedy would bork the auto industry (I was in the UAW then). I got laughed at, ridiculed, got told in person and by proxie in print from all the "economic experts" that "it will never happen, no one will buy them cheap little cars". They were wrong, I was right. Yes, it started back then, listening to the coke addled and drunk economic experts and following the captains of industry advice as a nation. Rubbish, and it was *clear* to see, abundantly clear to anyone who can think more than two steps ahead or some years ahead and run some common sense extrapolation scenarios.. Both management and labor needed several good bashes with the clue stick back then, but they kept dodging, about the only thing they are good at.

    You make money by manufacturing wealth, and having it be good quality and fair priced, not over priced ridiculous stupid crap or the cheapest possibly falling apart crap. Wealth is grown, mined, manufactured or a combination of that, everything else is wealth re arrangement or wealth service.

    We have swapped making wealth to trying to just manage it and service it. Nuts! Insanity! It will not work for the long run. It can for the short run,then you'll see it starting to crumble in the medium run (now, today) and it will eventually collapse in the long run. They can run their printing presses all they want, it won't matter. It's been tried before, it doesn't matter.

    We have forgotten the middle ground, the middle ground which at one time had the strongest middle class with real wealth ownership in the world, now we have the largest class of debtors ever. Only took one generation to pull that off. BUT, we sure do have a lot more billionaires now! Damn funny how that worked out....

    Yep, you can show a ton of paper profit by being a tradesman and selling off your tools friday night,and getting a loan on your work truck and handing over the keys and parking it at the lot, but come monday morning you are going to be hurting. Sure, you'll seem "rich" over the weekend,you can go out and buy all sortsa stuff with that flush cash, but it won't last.

    That's all we have been doing for a long time now and they are running out of options, and I don't care how much the goons at the Fed try to tweak things, eventually we won't have a dang thing that other folks want and then they'll even stop buying up your grandkids debt. Aren't you just a teeny bit ashamed that little babies not even born yet will be born into debt? Just a little?

    And walmartization is a big part of it. When they first started, and I remember it clearly as well, it was buy american there, keep you and your neighbor working, and it was fine. then..well, he passed on and now it is FU america, we are gonna milk this baby out and retire multibillionaires and go pound sand. sure, they got cheap crap now, and people with some money to buy it, but it won't last. It just can't

  34. It doesn't really matter by vux984 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Walmart, unlike the RIAA/MPAA is NOT in any danger whatsoever.

    Walmart, worst case, will just stop selling movies if (when?) the 'digital download thing' takes off and surpasses retail sales. Big flipping deal. What' the real issue here? Walmart frees up a few hundred square feet in a 100,000 sq foot store which they can fill with:

    Q-tips, Toothpicks, Bathroom scales, Can-openers, Kids shoes, String, Universal Remote Controls, Watering Cans, Aspirin, Spoons, USB cable, Coca-Cola, Ker-Plunk, Pregnancy Test Kits, Bicycles, and ten billion other items that will never be delivered as digital downloads...

  35. Rubbermaid by Aqua+OS+X · · Score: 2, Interesting

    A few years ago Walmart forced Rubbermaid to close down US plants and begin manufacturing overseas. Now this wasn't because people were not buying Rubbermaid goods. They did this at a time when Rubbermaid was extremely profitable and people were more then willing to buy their products as priced.

    However, Rubbermaid became reliant on Walmart for distribution, and Walmart wanted cheeper supply. At first Rubbermaid wouldn't fold, but then Walmart stopped carrying Rubbermaid products. By doing that Walmart almost crushed an incredibly successful company. Rubbermaid has since outsource manufacturing and, as I recall, now have products back in Walmart stores.

    Among other things, they've done also done this with "tipper stickers" and "clean" CDs.

    --
    "Things are more moderner than before- bigger, and yet smaller- it's computers-- San Dimas High School football RULES!"
    1. Re:Rubbermaid by dthree · · Score: 2, Informative

      Because of walmart throwing a tantrum at rubbermaid and refusing to accept a price increase due to the cost increase of raw materials, Rubbermaid had to close factories, fire people and eventually was bought out by the Newell corp or risk chapter 11.

      Here is a bit more detail:
      http://www.sprawl-busters.com/search.php?readstory =646

      Newell tried to keep the company afloat, but walmart continued to turn the screws on them, forcing more factory closings, more layoffs, and like you mentioned, manufacturing outsourcing.

      --
      "I forgot my mantra."
  36. so many ERRORS, so little bandwidth... by Travoltus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Huh? Companies were moving production overseas decades before Wal-Mart became popular. They would keep doing that even if Wal-Mart died overnight. Blaming off-shoring of manufacturing on Wal-Mart is like blaming off-shoring of technical jobs on Fry's. It's quite possibly the silliest logic I've ever heard.

    -1, reading comprehension problem.

    No one was blaming the off-shoring of manufacturing on Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart is blamed for grossly accelerating it. There's a major difference there.

    It's a terrible idea. Most of those local stores are already thoroughly screwed by availability of products on the internet. So now in ten years when they find themselves unable to survive (Ace Hardware and K-Mart in Santa Cruz, anyone?) even without Wal-Mart, those towns will find themselves without any way to buy the things they need to survive and will have to drive large distances to buy basic products.

    -1, worst example EVER

    Wait, people are going to pay shipping and wait x days to purchase a drill & batteries online (which they may need today) instead of going to Ace Hardware/Home Depot/Lowe's? Exactly what planet is this version of Santa Cruz located on?

    Further, lower prices are better for everyone in the long term. All the knee-jerkers say "Oh, look at all the stores that will close" and forget that Wal-Mart brings consolidated shopping, which causes stores to be able to survive that otherwise could not. It brings down prices of groceries and gasoline dramatically. It brings down the overall cost of living dramatically.

    -1, tunnel vision

    It also brings down the wages, too. And cheaper gasoline & groceries mean nothing when you're out of a job because your store closed down. Also, Mom & Pop music stores had employees who knew their product; ever asked a Wal Mart employee where the industrial rock/pop/hip hop/country/etc. section is, or who's the new up&coming artist in that genre? Try it sometime.

    Also, consolidated shopping is even more fun for superior products that Wal Mart decides they don't want to carry. So instead of you getting your favorite brand that you want, now you're railroaded into buying whatever Wal Mart dictates is okay to sell, because no one else is around to compete and sell other brands. So much for consumer choice there.

    Also, so much for employee choice. The old adage, "if you don't like the working conditions here, QUIT!!! and find another job" doesn't work as well in a city with a Wal Mart store. By the time they're done, there's not many other places to work, except Burger King.

    Oh, and Wal Mart stores are also known to close down from time to time; leaving an entire town without a department store at all. You want to talk about driving times?

    And another thing: Wal Mart is also known for refusing to sell some artists' music because it's "objectionable". Where do you go to get those artists, then? Cue this article. Now, Wal Mart wants to cut out your online alternatives to preserve their outdated business model. And the consumer gets hurt if Wally World gets their way.

    And small stores can survive and even thrive with Wal-Mart because of the proximity effect. Stores physically close to Wal-Mart actually get more business after Wal-Mart moves in. Stores do, however, have to specialize and carry the stuff that Wal-Mart doesn't.

    -1, Theory conflicts with reality

    Yes, but few stores can survive just on selling the things that Wal Mart doesn't. Wal Mart's strategy is to sell the lowest common denominator products at the lowest common denominator prices, to maximize foot traffic (and sales). There simply isn't enough profit to sell other products to uphold a store.

    Yeah, yeah, I know what you're thinking... if there isn't enough profit to uphold a store selling product B, C and D, then product B, C and D don't deserve to exist. That's the worst lo

    --
    --- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
  37. Re:I say let them do as they wish by don.g · · Score: 2, Insightful
    ...if the government did not subsidise farming, you would not eat...


    If the US government did not subsidise farming, then the US domestic prices of farmed goods would rise, and US farmers would be less competitive against imports. Subsidies distort the market, and they don't save you money -- you end up paying for the subsidies through your taxes.

    Our (New Zealand's) farmers are not subsidised, and we seem to survive.
    --
    Pretend that something especially witty is here. Thanks.